>globalists and capitalists shove globalization down everyone’s throats
>globalists cause the most pollution with their massive container ships (SULFUR from burning bunker fuel, not CO2)
>globalists then point the finger at us and say we need to change our lives because of global warming
Why does no one talk about this?
continued from
Other urls found in this thread:
reuters.com
au.int
transportenvironment.org
dailymail.co.uk
quora.com
digitalrefining.com
twitter.com
>Why does no one talk about this?
>continued from →
I can't be the only one seeing the contradiction here.
OY VEY IT'S ANUDDA SHOAH
SHUT IT DOWN
Nuke Chyna now. Chinks are the true enemy. Not poor, illiterate goat herdsmen
Some of those containers are filled with body parts
The body trade:
reuters.com
Well, we are talking about it. I mentioned this last thread, these things are nasty even when burning the "approved" crude oil. I was at the beach one time during a day with zero wind and experienced the pollution from a container ship, felt like a gas chamber. The air was barely breathable and I couldn't escape it.
Why aren't we building more?!
fuck you pussy, I make my living shipping containerloads of shit to southeast asia.
>felt like a gas chamber. The air was barely breathable and I couldn't escape it.
I can't tell if this is parody or not.
See
Also it seems like a thing trump could do to satisfy both greens and local manufacturing, while attacking globalists. Despite sea shipping being relatively energy efficient, seems hypocritical to turn a blind eye to it just because of being in international waters.
I only experienced it once but it was really awful. You may have experienced it on a plane during engine startup, sometimes the exhaust gets into the intakes and you're stuck inhaling exhaust with no escape. The gas chamber thing was a joke but it feels really bad being forced to inhale this shit.
Read the UN Agendas starting from the early 90s. Millennials were their petri dish and it didn’t work out. They have agendas leading up to the year 2063 right now and keep moving the goal post because they’re literal science deniers. Globalists are about control and there are mega corporations involved. They don’t care about the environment.
SHUT IT DOWN
It's not going to kill international shipping. Maybe a small percent. I don't know the exact figures but last thread someone said like 5% increase in price, which is hardly anything considering sea shipping is so heavily integrated into the economy, and sea shipping is hardly avoidable like across the atlantic/pacific.
How are soccer moms supposed to buy overpriced Korean washing machines if we don't free market?
ii secretly live on a container ship
over 4 years now and they never even found me
Fuck the UN. Individual countries can implement this by making sure container ships aren't carrying any bunker fuel as they leave/enter port, simply because they don't want sulfur raining down on them.
there are no regulations for engines out at sea so they are super inefficient
oh shit OP maybe we should collectively vote for the guy who wants to build more factories
They are super dirty but highly efficient.
>They are super dirty but highly efficient.
Interesting, I wonder if something could be done to filter the exhaust
Yeah that means they require tons of energy, you are the retard
I already voted for trump, but care about the environment too. Seems like a win/win for trump with few losers. Liberals already like the "buy local" thing but this would be on a more international level. It also points out the hypocritical nature of the CO2 global warming stuff, how we may reduce our own pollution but there is a net increase because of China replacing our factories with their own.
Trump says global warming is a chinese hoax, and while I don't take that at face value I see the logic here - they like to promote global warming hysteria because it benefits themselves.
>Yeah that means they require tons of energy, you are the retard
He is right. They are like 50 times more efficient in gallons per mile than trucking, but use fuel with like 1000 times more sulfur because they use the crap that's left over after distilling out the good parts. Hence, they are more efficient per gallon of fuel, but dirtier. They burn shit like this.
Savage.
>He is right. They are like 50 times more efficient in gallons per mile than trucking, but use fuel with like 1000 times more sulfur because they use the crap that's left over after distilling out the good parts. Hence, they are more efficient per gallon of fuel, but dirtier. They burn shit like this.
Too good.
it had to be done
Effective engine output is pushing near to 45%. That's more or less double any automotive engine that's not a lab test bed. Many power plants don't get 45% energy conversion from fuel to electricity.
They burn cheap but dirty fuel very well.
He's absolutely right.
Ships require much less power than trucks to move the same load, but because they burn heavy fuels requiring high temperatures the combustion produces a lot of NOx, and because the NOx is now limited under international law, the quality of combustion is reduced, resulting in higher particulates.
So in the end you are the brainlet on two points
>Effective engine output is pushing near to 45%. That's more or less double any automotive engine that's not a lab test bed. Many power plants don't get 45% energy conversion from fuel to electricity.
>They burn cheap but dirty fuel very well.
I’ll never stop laughing at this
Maersk is as far away from a globalist as you can get.
He was basically a nationalist George Soros. Funding nationalist parties left and right, as well as having said that "Hitler was right on most things".
>He's absolutely right.
>Ships require much less power than trucks to move the same load, but because they burn heavy fuels requiring high temperatures the combustion produces a lot of NOx, and because the NOx is now limited under international law, the quality of combustion is reduced, resulting in higher particulates.
>So in the end you are the brainlet on two points
They are both enemies.
Cool, so he would understand concerns with the environment. Even if you don't care about the bunker fuel they burn in international waters, there is still a motivation to burn cleaner fuel near the ports because people actually breathe the air there.
Maersk would be equally affected as any other shipping company.
what are you trying to say here?
sailors should be fed a strict bean diet and the ships engines will be redesigned to run off methane collected from a hood over the sleeping quarters. the carbon emmisions can be captured and use to make the ocean a fizzy drink.
we should regulate the greedy.
>what are you trying to say here?
I'm just gonna steal your brainlet memes since you've presented no argument.
Yes
I think we should ally with russia against the asian trade invasion. Somehow people completely ignore the possibility of chinese propaganda while chinese americans mostly vote for globalists.
THEMS MY MEMES NIGGER
This, Anglos and the Slavs vs the world one last time.
...
...
...
The bunker fuel pollution is so bad in Long Beach, CA, the whole west side has high incidents of childhood cancer.
Luckily that's also where all the poors live.
...
...
What is the nuclear navy?
>globalist pieces of shit come in
>bribe our politicians
>everything gets taxed
>oy vey goy pay taxes for your car you ruin the planet
>oy vey power is more expensive too now
>nvm me not paying any texas because our seat is in ireland :^)
>nvm me shipping your industry to the chinks with these ships
>nvm me using these ships to ship overpriced garbage back to you
Its going to far this time.
>Sup Forums buys cruise ship
>Sup Forums starts a jew only cruise
>engines exhaust goes straight to the cabins
JEW CRUISE...JEUISE
I never understood why we can power carriers and other massive ships with nukes, but can’t do nuclear reactors on shipping ships
>Subhuman leftie garbage don't understand fuel efficiency != emission quality
No surprises here.
We traded light pollution for heavy pollution by exporting our factories. Chinese factories are much dirtier, plus shipping.
So yes, factories and even coal power in the US would have a reduction in pollution. We are all on the same globe, so that Chinese shit fucks everyone up.
How else would China make a living you racist?
Yes, combine the two biggest nuclear arsenals.
I don't know how well I get along with slavs but would much prefer them to chinese hegemony. I prefer this to the 1984 scenario.
That is awful even if I dislike them. Normally the pollution isn't too bad due to the winds, but if the wind is still it accumulates to hazardous levels.
>MFW Germany tries to do anything about it
You shall ever be thwarted by the eternal Anglo.
>I never understood why we can power carriers and other massive ships with nukes, but can’t do nuclear reactors on shipping ships
It's 100% politics. International shipping could be done essentially 100% pollution free, but politicians are too cucked to let it happen.
Russia has a large fleet of nuclear icebreakers and for all the time of operation there has not been a single accident.
West is too cucked to build such monsters
Yes I think this is a very worthy cause, it's so hypocritical to ignore these SOx/NOx pollutants which have much more immediate effect than CO2, which is naturally in the air.
I'm not much of a chemistry guy but this seems to lay out some of the arguments.
transportenvironment.org
This was gone over in the last thread, it comes down to the need to ship the nuclear fuel between different countries, which could potentially be stolen. Would need such massive oversight that it's probably not worth it.
Without such concerns it is definitely a great solution.
If a few Somalians on a shitty boat can hijack a container ship, would it make sense to leave a nuclear reactor on one for any group to have easy access to?
The answer is no dumbass.
Bitches don't know about the American heavy breakers... Bitch we own the ice breaking biz. Fuck off with your toys
>The 16 biggest ships produce more pollution than all the cars in the world.
Is this supposed to be some sort of argument?
How much pollution would be produced if cars were to transport the same cargo the same distances?
The Lenin lost coolant and had fuel melt,
WTF are you talking about?
Yeah, your forte seems to be losing nuclear subs.
What the fuck are you talking about? We have like 3 shitty ice breakers
Also forgot to mention these pollutants affect port cities which are mostly liberal. They should be more concerned with local pollutants than hypothetical adverse weather from global warming.
Russia has much more need for those. Yes they are cool as fuck. They aren't docking at foreign ports though and I bet they mostly remain in russian waters.
Canada might be able to do similar.
Why do we need to transport goods that far in the first place?
>How much pollution would be produced if cars were to transport the same cargo the same distances?
The point is that you stop transporting goods from Asian countries and start producing in your own again. That's what you would do if you cared about the environment.
The point is that they need to find alternative fuel sources, not us.
>implying 80 iq subhumans would be able to take it apart, let alone do anything with it
>Why does no one talk about this?
you are messing up everything about this issue.
I work in the energy industry.
Bunker fuel is the lowest quality product that can be refined from crude oil. it is burned over the ocean because it doesn't matter as much to people's health there as it would on land.
Would you rather burn high octane gasoline on the ocean and burn bunker fuel in the LA basin?
you have to burn bunker fuel somehow, its better over the ocean.
This is the source material: dailymail.co.uk
Article is from 2009, I didn't check what it is now.
It is politics, but it's not dumb. Nuclear fuel is tightly controlled for a good reason, since it can be refined into nuclear bombs.
Perhaps thorium or something would work, since it can't be refined into bombs? That is what thorium fans say. Maybe that is a solution to this problem. The whole US uranium industry is partially based on the fact that it can be refined into bombs.
>Maersk is as far away from a globalist as you can get.
>Makes money by literally shipping globally
>Not globalist
Do you know what globalist means?
Chinks and Kikes are the enemy, Goddard.
Kikes control the Mudslimes and use them against the west.
As much as libertarianism has died out one spirit of it which remains strong for me is to have any decree from on high for orthopraxy told to fuck off and die. Without failure elites will decree policies and behavior they expect of us but are not practiced in turn. This is so when they try and promote 'environmental eating' (You eat powdered bugs, they eat filet mignon), fossil fuels (you ride economy they ride first class, you have to pay out the ear for a green car they can get for a pittance of their income), air conditioning (you sweat like a Bengali when even the fucking Iraqis and Pajeets use AC when/if they can afford it, their California villas are cooled and Hamptons suites are warmed).
If you hear from the elites (media, NGOs, ect.) any kind of policy unless you see the preachers practicing it day in and day out tell them to shove it up their ass.
Don't forget that flag of convenience shit. Christ, as much as I am against warrantless regulations the fact that it's accepted writ large for countries to run all their shipping under Panamanian or Liberian or Sierra Leonese flags is abysmal.
I fucking hate clean air. Burn more coal please.
I do but most people think i'm a tinfoil hat conspiracy theorist
Otherwise on Sup Forums most people don't even read your post.
Anyways global warming is a social construct for the elites to blame people for fucking the planet up so they can have an excuses for worldwide depopulation
>Bunker fuel is the lowest quality product that can be refined from crude oil
You're now asking why you don't refine the product even more so its more environmental.
It takes energy(co2 producing processes) to refine. You balance out the products as best you can.
They also carry a shitton of shit. The pollution comes mostly from greedy owners buying and forcing them to use recycled and other shitty oil to run them.
*mostly because of
>consumer complaining about cargo ships
lol
Nuclear power is the way of the future.
>globalists then point the finger at us and say we need to change our lives because of global warming
Globalists are the ones creating there anti-science propaganda that you swallow whole because you're such a fucking retard that you've been manipulated into being their shill for free.
Multinational petroleum conglomerates are the ones pushing for no accountability, and it doesn't get any more globalist then them. They seek to enter every backyard on the planet and they use the worlds millitaries to accomplish their goals.
You're such a stooge and a parrot that you don't even have a basic grasp of how the world works.
How do you get WiFi?
Micro nuclear plants. Like one for every block. Within twenty years. Thorium.
Economics.
Look into it, lads.
This is an excellent reason to increase/add tariffs on imported goods, and spur more domestic manufacturing here in the U.S.
It needs a further refining step to remove sulfur. As I understand it, the bunker fuel they use is not refined at all, it's the junk left over after boiling off the lighter stuff, so it ends up having all sorts of trash.
This crap fuel wouldn't get thrown out, but instead would be refined closer to the standard held to diesel. I'm not a chemistry expert, but I believe this can be achieved by cracking and distilling, so basically refineries would have to be upgraded. This talks about the specific issue of sulfur.
digitalrefining.com
I've also read some stuff about filtering out the bad stuff in the exhaust from the ship.
Check out the next post.
Cost benefits are real in refining. Sulfer refined would have to be deposited somewhere. Maybe there is a better way, if you know of it you would become a millionaire. I know many very very wealthy entrepreneurs in the energy space.
OP is posing the problem in the wrong way. that's the point of my post.
How can I be for and against petroleum at the same time? Petroleum obviously isn't going anywhere. The hypocriticality is shaming us for driving, yet using heavily polluting ships to drive globalism. When was the last time you heard global warming people talk about container ships?
The headline gives zero scale to some supposed problem. It tells us nothing. It is trying to convey that it is a lot of pollution by making an apples to oranges comparison
It's clickbait and op is too much of a fag to provide any link at all, let alone an archived link.
Climate change is just a scheme to funnel money to internationalist organizations though. It doesn't matter if the climate is changing and the reason is humans or not, the money and power will never be used to prevent it either way.
I'm not too concerned about CO2.
If it takes heat there is plenty from CSP (depending on temperature required - CSP can go up to 1000 c with power tower), or even heat from bunker fuel with scrubbers (not an expert but from what I have observed, this type of process isn't too uncommon). It would depend on local resources.
It's true there is a cost benefit balance, but there is also demand from people. I didn't start this thread with any particular goal in mind except to point out the hypocrisy of being concerned with "carbon" while ignoring every other pollutant.
>while ignoring every other pollutant.
Word
I've been Mercury pollution is freaking the fuck out of me rn.
there are millions of gallons being released from permafrost.
Mercury and other heavy metals being relased by permafrost is going to make almost all seafood inedible for many decades.
A ton of mercury was released by california during the gold rush. That is all conveniently forgotten in modern times. The practice they used to separate gold is treacherous but they didn't know any better at the time.
Hence why mercury news is a publication in california.
Do you really know wealthy investors? Maybe i can get in touch. IDK much about sulfur/fuel but am looking for the right people for something else energy related. Kindof a shot in the dark.
>Canada might be able to do similar.
Sure. A bunch of noisy smelly old hippy women with bongo drums would stop that program in it's tracks